Hit a car while it was reversing out from its driveway--need suggestion

I believe that the car reversing is at-fault here, according to the insurance company. The 55km/h speed limit seems strange to me...never heard of a road that had a speed limit that was not a factor of ten, discounting recommended speed limit signs =\

Flyer wrote: ↑I believe that the car reversing is at-fault here, according to the insurance company. The 55km/h speed limit seems strange to me...never heard of a road that had a speed limit that was not a factor of ten, discounting recommended speed limit signs =\

I think you should reread the post. The limit was 50km/h but the OP was doing 55km/h.

I guess things are different in Ontario. In BC the insurer (usually ICBC) determines fault using what you say, what the other driver says and what is in the police report.

There are a lot of holes in this, ie. the police report stating "30 km/h". Call your insurance company and see what they have to say...

Good luck.

Flyer wrote: ↑I believe that the car reversing is at-fault here, according to the insurance company. The 55km/h speed limit seems strange to me...never heard of a road that had a speed limit that was not a factor of ten, discounting recommended speed limit signs =\

sorry, the speed limit is 50 km/hr........

I am confident you are not at fault. Fault determination for insurance is different from law enforcement. If you look up Ontario Fault Determination Rules, it is evident that the car reversing is at fault, especially reversing from a driveway.

Car reversing out of driveway = at fault.

EDIT: I didn't go through it, but here's Ontario's fault determination rules: www.ibc.ca/en/Car_Insurance/documents/b ... -Rules.pdf
Find your situation.

Did you told the office you were driving at 55? Otherwise how did he know?

And if airbag did not depoly, there may not be a record in the ECU.

'[H wrote:ackerK;6398993']Did you told the office you were driving at 55? Otherwise how did he know?

And if airbag did not depoly, there may not be a record in the ECU.

Yes, I told the officer about the speed............and the airbag did not deploy.

"The road was wet, and it was snowing lightly and I was driving at 55 km/h"...in a 50km/h zone.
The way I see it, this is your problem right here...Its not that you were going 5kms over, but that under the conditions you state, you should have been going well below the limit due to the hazardous road and poor visibility conditions. So the officer probably determined that you were unable to come to a reasonable stop under these circumstances, and that the guy reversing wouldnt have been able to see you either due to the weather /your speed.
if you could go back in time, you might be able to get off if you deny ever saying 55kph and focus on the 30kph instead.

All things being equal, the officer was right to deem you both at fault. I think its fairly common practice for cops to do so when bad weather is a factor in accidents.

Slow down when driving in poor weather...It could have been a kid instead of a reversing car, and you'd have to live with that the rest of your life.

lol why would you tell the officer you were going 5 over

Based on Fault determination rules you are 100% not at fault, regardless of speeding slightly or due to weather.

The fact is you were driving on a road and someone else cut onto the road, they should only have moved out of their space onto the road when it was clear to do so.

The same thing if I am driving along and someone makes a right hand turn from a road into front of me, even though I may end up rear ending them they would be at fault for cuting in front so suddenly without taking percaution.

alamshahid wrote: ↑Based on Fault determination rules you are 100% not at fault, regardless of speeding slightly or due to weather.

The fact is you were driving on a road and someone else cut onto the road, they should only have moved out of their space onto the road when it was clear to do so.

The same thing if I am driving along and someone makes a right hand turn from a road into front of me, even though I may end up rear ending them they would be at fault for cuting in front so suddenly without taking percaution.

Thats a ridiculous over-statement. Please provide a source to back this statement up.
Speed is of course a factor, compounded by poor visibility / braking conditions. What if instead of 55 in a 50, he was doing 120kms? Would the person backing out still be certain of being reasonably able to see that the road is clear? Not necessarily...One second its clear, the next its not.
Clearly the guy backing up has the lions share of the responsibility here, but its foolish to suggest that a speeder in bad weather (where speed plays an even bigger factor than usual) has 0% contribution to the accident. Without seeing the area where it took place, I'd prob. call it a 60/40 split, maybe 70/30 if it was a major street without visual obstructions.

Anways, looks like you may want to take this to court, OP. Let us know how it turns out! And from now on, never admit to being driving over the speed limit!

I may have missed this in the post, but why was police called ?

I would have told the guy, hey look, you hit me. My car did not go sideways UP your driveway to hit the back of your car. DUH. (I assume ur side got hit)?

So, I'd get him to pay for fixing my car. 55km/hr? Were you sure? Do you have a photo of your speedometre for proof? Maybe you were at 52, 51, 50 ? No proof = nothing.

5km/hr slower would not mean the guy would NOT have hit you when backing out of his driveway.

This way, I would avoid any records on EITHER insurance companies, it wouldn't help either one of you to have a record on it.

But if buddy refuses to pay, then yes, tell insurance.

rfdrfd wrote: ↑I may have missed this in the post, but why was police called ?

I would have told the guy, hey look, you hit me. My car did not go sideways UP your driveway to hit the back of your car. DUH. (I assume ur side got hit)?

So, I'd get him to pay for fixing my car. 55km/hr? Were you sure? Do you have a photo of your speedometre for proof? Maybe you were at 52, 51, 50 ? No proof = nothing.

5km/hr slower would not mean the guy would NOT have hit you when backing out of his driveway.

This way, I would avoid any records on EITHER insurance companies, it wouldn't help either one of you to have a record on it.

But if buddy refuses to pay, then yes, tell insurance.

If the total damage to all vehicles/property involved in the accident exceeds, or appears to exceed $1000, the police must be called.

Jin-n-Juice wrote: ↑Car reversing out of driveway = at fault.

EDIT: I didn't go through it, but here's Ontario's fault determination rules: www.ibc.ca/en/Car_Insurance/documents/b ... -Rules.pdf
Find your situation.

Thanks for the info.

masuk wrote: ↑Interesting enough, in the accident report, the officer reported my car speed to be 30 km/hr.

Don't say another word about going 55 - in fact deny it. The official report (as you say) indicates 30.

Get the report to your insurance company and you are done! The other drivers insurance company will see "he was backing out of driveway into right-of-way. Approaching vehicle was doing 30 in a 50." 100% at fault assigned to the other driver. You save your claim record.

Zephyr22b wrote: ↑If the total damage to all vehicles/property involved in the accident exceeds, or appears to exceed $1000, the police must be called.

Is that an Ontario Pronvincial law or something? sounds likea waste of police resources. so you have to wait at the scen for the police to arrive or you can report it after the fact?

Sashimi23 wrote: ↑Is that an Ontario Pronvincial law or something? sounds likea waste of police resources. so you have to wait at the scen for the police to arrive or you can report it after the fact?

That's the case in BC. The police are supposed to be called if any of these apply:

1. The apparent damage is $1000+.
2. The accident involves a motorcycle or pedestrian.
3. If anyone was injured.

Not commonly practiced though.